Stephen Brookfield - Creative and critical thinking

(Sorry for the late upload, I left this post in the edition mode without knowing. It was mean to be post on August the 16th)

In the video is highly implied that is incredibly relevant to help students to develop or improve their critical and creative thinking skills. All students need this skill to defend their ideas and question others' thoughts. Without this, students and younger people will be conformist with what they are learning and will not stop to think on their own what the topics and new information means to them.

Professor Brookfield  explains that critical thinking is a process in which an individual becomes aware of the assumptions that affect the way they think and then they try to find if what they know is truly viable and accurate. He also mentions that a person that is aware of what he is learning and that thinks creatively  is able to see things different from others, from various and original perspectives and try to avoid using the same reasoning over and over again. What is more, this individual is also capable of express their ideas in original ways, being resourceful and innovative.

Then he talked , making some joke in between about the critically and creatively informed actions and in which things each one is based: 

> Evidence or experience that can be justifiable.

> Assumptions known and checked by experts or facts.

> And lastly the one that stands a chance of achieving its intended consequence viewed from multiple perspectives.

What is more is that Professor Brookfield also talked about the different kind of assumptions human beings create such as the causal in which we explain a sequence of events. Also, the prescriptive that allow us to guess how things will or may happen and finally the paradigmatic that is the one we call common sense or reasoning that let us take things from granted and feel secure about some events in our lives.

To conclude he talked about the four key intellectual traditions: 

> Analytic Philosophy: logical fallacies, argument analysis, deductive, analogical and interferential reasoning.

> Natural Science: Hypothetical/deductive method, a principle of falsifiability. This one was really appealing for me.

> Critical Theory: Uncovering power dynamics and ideological manipulation.

> Pragmatism: an experimental and creative pursuit of beautiful consequences. For example democracy, inclusion, connection. 

At last, I enjoyed the video, I liked the few jokes he made and the examples he propose during his talk. Finally, I think that the Professor Brookfield has so much more to share with us in the future.

A different...person?

After reading, "Should chimpazees be considered "Persons""? by Jeff Sebo I was asked to make an analysis.

This paragraph is a description

"You might be aware that chimpanzees can recognize themselves in a mirror, communicate through sign language, pursue goals creatively and form long-lasting friendships. You might also think that these are the kinds of things that a person can do. However, you might not think of chimpanzees as persons."

This paragraph is an explanation

"The problem is that under current United States law, one is either a “person” or a “thing.” There is no third option. If you are a person, you have the capacity for rights, including the right to habeas corpus relief, which protects you from unlawful confinement. If you are a thing, you do not have the capacity for rights. And unfortunately, even though they are sensitive, intelligent, social beings, Kiko and Tommy are considered things under the law."

 This paragraph is a agreement

"In response, the Nonhuman Rights Project is taking a bold position: It is arguing that if every being must be either a person or a thing, then Kiko and Tommy are persons, not things. I agree, and many other philosophers do, too."

This is an disagreement
However, this view of personhood is unacceptably exclusionary. We all lack the ability to use language and reason in abstract and sophisticated ways early in life, some of us lose these abilities later in life, and some of us never develop them. 

This is a summary

But now suppose we accept a more inclusive view of personhood, according to which humans are persons because we have some or all of the features mentioned before: conscious experience, emotionality, a sense of self or bonds of care or interdependence. 

Reflection about barriers

There are many types of barriers which affect our critical thinking. Misunderstandings of what is meant by criticism, lack of practice, reluctance to criticise those with more expertise and more.

But, I think that most of them are not a problem for me. I am the kind of person how gives their opinions and shares their thoughts without any censorship... most of the times. I am not perfect.

Probably the two reasons that most affect my thoughts are being afraid of experts and my own affective reasons towards the topics. I am a person how feels emotionally attack when being criticized thought I have improved while receiving critics there are people who do not. There are people which you cannot give your opinions or thoughts freely because maybe they are your friends or your teachers or even your parents and due to the respect you have towards them you do not want to make them feel that you attack their knowledge. 

Then the fear towards experts, well is the same as up here. But, this tie is you how will feel attack and feel that you do not know anything at all which will remove all the motivations you had to know more.

Probably I will try though, I am already trying to do not lose my motivation to learn about the topics of my interest. Lately, I can see that asking my teachers is not that difficult and most of them are really kind thought their intonations while talking to me are kind of scary. But, at the end I guess is important to know that asking to know more is not bad and critic others are not the end of the world. We all want to know what is the truth about any topic and asking and comparing is one way of doing it.

What student I am?

Bodner (1988) states that students " are unable to apply their knowledge outside the narrow domain in which they learned". Which means that they just read and memorize instead of criticising what they learn every day which generates students that do not really keep anything for their personal growth.

I probably identify myself partially in Bodner's description of students. Which obviously is not good... But, I must say that It depends on what I am studying. All my life I have been the kind of student that learns something and then if the topic or information was interesting  I would look for even more information at home. Nowadays I will say that this has not changed at all. If I did not find appealing a topic I will keep what I was taught and that is it, then if someone corrects me then I will change the way I see that topic but not before. Maybe is a little sad but sometimes you cannot go deeper into some knowledge because most of them are not useful for your context or the kind of person you are, they are just information that you know but you do never apply. Like maths.

Maybe now that I read Bodner I will try to be a little more conscious of what my teachers are trying to transmit to me but I cannot promise anything for sure. Either way, I am gonna try and see if I get too stuffed with information and ended up forgetting everything. 

Challenging opinions

I think that the most difficult about challenging opinions of other people are the strong arguments that can come out of a simple talk. 

Many times before I had lost contact with people or even they stop talking to me totally because I did not agree with their point of views. I am not afraid of disagreeing because of the content of my opinion or the others but the consequences in my interpersonal relationship with those people. 

One of the things that hurts me the most is to lose a good friend because we can reach a point in our debate in which both of us are in agreement, on good terms. Maybe due to this age is also difficult, no one wants to feel that they know less than others, all of us want to have the reason. 

I usually try to deal with this...

because obviously, it not always work, by listening to their complete opinion about the topic before giving my point of view. Doing this I feel that I show how truly interested I am in hearing their thoughts. Often, people get mad because they think that you are not truly paying attention to their opinions, that they are just words and not a true part of their beliefs.

So, I think that is a good way of facing this. Normal talks can become strong arguments in a few words. When both of you lose your patience there is not coming back.

Influences on my thinking

For me, the influences on my own thinking that I need to be most aware of so they don't prejudice my thinking are probably the topics related... opinions about religion and politics.

Religion because is a really subjective topic. Everyone has their own beliefs and honestly wherever you say may be taken as an offense. There is always someone that is not possible to talk properly without arguing.

I do not talk about politics because I directly avoid it. Is a topic in which my opinion has no weight and anyone may say that I am wrong and I will be obligated to give them the reason.

But if I cannot avoid getting into a conversation about these particular topics I try to deal with this using internet, asking friends about the topics so I can build my own opinion about it though politics are kind of boring in my opinion.

Reflection: emotional self-management

Talking personaly: 

I was ask to shared with you what emotions are the most difficult to managed when others disagree with me and I must say that this is quite difficult to admitt.

1.  Doubt: When someone disagrees with I inmediately think that probably I was wrong all along. Is a bad habit to tend to give others the reason without being a 100% sure about the arguments that others are exposing to me. Which makes me vulnerable while exposing my own arguments because I lost total confidence in what I think I know.
2. Anger: Though is not that strong, the feeling I get when someone disagrees with me is like a really heavy feeling of anger. I take too personal when this happen towards topics I feel completely sure about and  I feel that people in general always want to humilliate you in some way. Maybe I took it too personal but is something I cannot avoid most of the time and I admit that is really childish but I do not really know how to fix that yet.
3. Anxiety: I just lost it sometimes and disagreements just create internal debates in my mind. Often,this thoughts lead me to the path of throwing away all I believe about the topic exposed and giving the reason to the other person. Even if that other person is wrong I confine myself that I am the one who do not know anything at all.

Then, I try to deal with these by:

1. Thinking about other topics that I am sure I know about, so I do not restrain myself just feeling like an ignorant.
2. Shutting my mouth and bitting my tongue. Sometimes is best to not talk and ended up totally destroyed by others arguments. So, I can just by hearing, learn about what I did not knew or what I had wrong information about and redeem myself.
3. Breathing slowly so I can calm the negative physical reactions of an argument. This is, particulary difficult for me because I have always had a bad physical condition due to stress.